Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4357470" data-attributes="member: 2011"><p>The problem with this definition is that it leads to logical inconsistencies.</p><p></p><p>Many elements of the game state something like "When an attack occurs, ...". Limiting it to Attack Checks is fine if that was the designer intention (and they clarify it in the FAQ or an errata), but this does not appear to be the case. Nowhere in the rules is this called out.</p><p></p><p>The word "attack" is used 2456 times in the PHB. It is likely that the designers mean "attack" (i.e. trying to affect a foe) in many of those instances (even in the case of an Attack Power, it is a power that affects one or more foes).</p><p></p><p>One really should assume that every Attack Power is an attack and every Utility Power is not an attack. Regardless of whether there is an Attack Check within any given Attack Power.</p><p></p><p>Otherwise, you get people stating that a Wall of Fire is not REALLY an attack. It kills 3 enemy minions, but it is not REALLY an attack. WT?</p><p></p><p>That's just nonsensical.</p><p></p><p>We should go with the logical (and English) definition of the word attack instead of limiting it to Attack Checks because the logical definition avoids stupid stuff like this example. The logical definition is also RAW (e.g. if a feat that affects attacks does not state that it is limited to Attack Rolls, then it is not) and it also appears to be RAI.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Granted, I understand the POV that attacks are only attacks if they have the Attack keyword, but to me, that just means that attacks only have attack check rolls if they have the Attack keyword.</p><p></p><p>To me, the Attack keyword is not the definition of an attack. It is the definition of needing an Attack Check.</p><p></p><p>Just like a Wall of Fire really does affect targets, even though it does not have the Target keyword.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Another thing. In the Evasion feat, the word attack is not capitalized. The Attack keyword appears to be always capitalized.</p><p></p><p>To me, they are not the same. The non-capitalized word attack simply means the English word attack. It does not mean the Attack keyword. YMMV.</p><p></p><p>Ditto for Target.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Feats that affect power keywords like Astra Fire state things like:</p><p></p><p>"when you use a power that has the fire or radiant keyword"</p><p></p><p>Explicit over Implicit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 4357470, member: 2011"] The problem with this definition is that it leads to logical inconsistencies. Many elements of the game state something like "When an attack occurs, ...". Limiting it to Attack Checks is fine if that was the designer intention (and they clarify it in the FAQ or an errata), but this does not appear to be the case. Nowhere in the rules is this called out. The word "attack" is used 2456 times in the PHB. It is likely that the designers mean "attack" (i.e. trying to affect a foe) in many of those instances (even in the case of an Attack Power, it is a power that affects one or more foes). One really should assume that every Attack Power is an attack and every Utility Power is not an attack. Regardless of whether there is an Attack Check within any given Attack Power. Otherwise, you get people stating that a Wall of Fire is not REALLY an attack. It kills 3 enemy minions, but it is not REALLY an attack. WT? That's just nonsensical. We should go with the logical (and English) definition of the word attack instead of limiting it to Attack Checks because the logical definition avoids stupid stuff like this example. The logical definition is also RAW (e.g. if a feat that affects attacks does not state that it is limited to Attack Rolls, then it is not) and it also appears to be RAI. Granted, I understand the POV that attacks are only attacks if they have the Attack keyword, but to me, that just means that attacks only have attack check rolls if they have the Attack keyword. To me, the Attack keyword is not the definition of an attack. It is the definition of needing an Attack Check. Just like a Wall of Fire really does affect targets, even though it does not have the Target keyword. Another thing. In the Evasion feat, the word attack is not capitalized. The Attack keyword appears to be always capitalized. To me, they are not the same. The non-capitalized word attack simply means the English word attack. It does not mean the Attack keyword. YMMV. Ditto for Target. Feats that affect power keywords like Astra Fire state things like: "when you use a power that has the fire or radiant keyword" Explicit over Implicit. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
CustServ on "What is 'an attack'?"
Top